Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 15 recites the limitation “the frame indicates…………” at line 4 in claims 7 and 15. It is not clear from the claim language if “the frame” is beacon frame or second frame or third frame or fourth frame and therefore scope of the claims are nor clear here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No US 2013/0028169 to Bontu et al. (hereinafter Bontu) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No US 2023/0180098 to Harounabadi et al. (hereinafter Harounabadi)
As to claims 1, 9 and 17, Bontu discloses a first station (STA) in a wireless network, the first STA comprising:
a memory (Bontu; [0114]);
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to (Bontu; [01114]):
receive a beacon frame from a relay node comprising information indicating capabilities of the relay node and availability of the relay node to perform relay operations (Bontu; [0075]; [0079]-[0081] discloses the UE can also detect the availability of the relay LAN 125 through broadcast messages, such as beacons, transmitted by one or more relay nodes 130 over a frequency band of spectrum dedicated for relay control signaling. ;
transmit, based on the information included in the beacon frame, a first frame to the relay node that includes a request for the relay node to perform a relay operation for a communication between the first STA and a second STA (Bontu; Fig.5:502; [0080]-[0081] shows and discloses the UE 107 can send a request for cooperation, for example the "coop request" 502, to the relay nodes 130a, 130b and 130c. The coop request 502 can be sent over the frequency band of spectrum dedicated for relay control signaling. In some implementations, bandwidth allocation to send the coop request 502 or other control messages can be advertised in the broadcast messages transmitted by the relay nodes 130);
Bontu at [0081] discloses the UE receiving response from a relay node based on request. Bontu fails to disclose receive a second frame from the relay node accepting the request to perform the relay operation for the communication between the first STA and the second STA. However, Harounabadi discloses
receive a second frame from the relay node accepting the request to perform the relay operation for the communication between the first STA and the second STA (Harounabadi; [0281]-[0290] discloses receiving Relay UE(s) confirms/responds and/or the confirming/responding Relay UEs are relay capable and/or relay enabled the response/confirmation may include the offered QoS (e.g. any combination of latency, priority, reliability) directly serves as Relay UE);
associate with the relay node based on the acceptance of the relay node to perform the relay operation (Harounabadi; [0281]-[0290] discloses receiving Relay UE(s) confirms/responds and/or the confirming/responding Relay UEs are relay capable and/or relay enabled the response/confirmation may include the offered QoS (e.g. any combination of latency, priority, reliability) directly serves as Relay UE);
establish a relay link between the first STA and the relay node based on the association with the relay node (Harounabadi; Fig.5; [0392] discloses two remote UEs and a UE-to-UE relay that bi-directionally relays signals between the two remote UEs); and
communicate indirectly with the second STA via the relay link (Harounabadi; Fig.5; [0392] discloses two remote UEs and a UE-to-UE relay that bi-directionally relays signals between the two remote UEs).
It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to provide communication between two UEs through relay node.
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, the rejection of claim 1 as listed above is incorporated herein. In addition, Bontu-Harounabadi discloses wherein the relay node is associated with the first STA and the second STA (Harounabadi; Fig.5; [0392] discloses two remote UEs and a UE-to-UE relay that bi-directionally relays signals between the two remote UEs).
As to claims 5 and 13, the rejection of claim 1 as listed above is incorporated herein. In addition, Bontu-Harounabadi discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a third frame from the relay node that includes an indication that the request to perform the relay operation was refused temporarily and an association comeback time indicating when the first STA can send another request (Harounabadi; [0281]-[0290] discloses receiving Relay UE(s) confirms/responds and/or the confirming/responding Relay UEs are relay capable and/or relay enabled the response/confirmation may include the offered QoS (e.g. any combination of latency, priority, reliability) directly serves as Relay UE).
As to claims 8 and 16, the rejection of claim 1 as listed above is incorporated herein. In addition, Bontu-Harounabadi discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
transmit a third frame to the relay node that requests the information regarding capabilities of the relay node to perform relay operations (Harounabadi; [0284]; [0295]-[0304] discloses the relay request may include the needed QoS (e.g. any combination of latency, priority, reliability)) ; and
receive a fourth frame from the relay node that includes relay information including capabilities of the relay node to perform relay operations (Harounabadi; [0287]-[0289]; 0295]-[0304] discloses the confirming/responding Relay UEs are relay capable and/or relay enabled the response/confirmation may include the offered QoS (e.g. any combination of latency, priority, reliability) directly serves as Relay UE).
Claims 3, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No US 2013/0028169 to Bontu et al. (hereinafter Bontu) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No US 2023/0180098 to Harounabadi et al. (hereinafter Harounabadi) in view of U.S. Publication No US 2026/0020005 to He et al. (hereinafter He)
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, Bontu-Harounabadi discloses a relay node, but fails to disclose wherein the relay node has access point (AP) functionalities. However, He discloses
wherein the relay node has access point (AP) functionalities (He; Fig.6; [0111] discloses the relay device is used to relay the communication between the relay AP and the STA. For example, relay device 2 is connected downward to STA 1 and STA 2 and mainly acts as an AP; and relay device 2 is connected upward to a root AP and acts as a terminal node means the relay node has access point (AP) functionalities)
It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings so that the relay node can act as an AP for downlink transmission.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No US 2013/0028169 to Bontu et al. (hereinafter Bontu) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No US 2023/0180098 to Harounabadi et al. (hereinafter Harounabadi) in view of U.S. Publication No US 2026/0032414 to Koike et al. (hereinafter Koike)
As to claims 4, 12 and 20, Bontu-Harounabadi discloses a relay node, but fails to disclose of receiving an indication that indicates an availability of the relay node. However, Koike discloses
wherein the information on the availability of the relay node indicates a time period during which the relay node is available to perform the relay operation (Koike; [0063] discloses Unavailable period for RRC Reconfiguration indicates a period during which the UE is not available as relay UE although an RRC Reconfiguration is received means other time period, the relay UE is available).
It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to use the limited resources in an effective way by sending the information to a relay node when it is available.
Claims 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No US 2013/0028169 to Bontu et al. (hereinafter Bontu) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No US 2023/0180098 to Harounabadi et al. (hereinafter Harounabadi) in view of U.S. Publication No US 2024/0155470 to Orsino et al. (hereinafter Orsino)
As to claims 6 and 14, Bontu-Harounabadi discloses a relay node, but fails to disclose of transmitting an indication to the relay node to temporarily disable the relay link with the relay node. However, Orsino discloses
wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a third frame to the relay node to temporarily disable the relay link with the relay node (Orsino; [0171]-[0172] discloses the relay wireless device receives an indication from the first wireless device indicating that the relay wireless device is not to transmit SIBs to the first wireless device and the relay wireless device stops the transmission of SIBs to the first wireless device means relay node to temporarily disable the relay link for a communication)
It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to use the limited resources in an effective way by stopping the transmission of a signal from the relay node to a remote node.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-6P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 5712723905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAISAL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights